Grab bag babies? I dont know, this sounds like paranoia to me.
Because you would be smart enough to know they could be eaisly switched or the babies mixed up.
Ok, so what is the solution besides taking their fingerprints, which the state nor the hospital has a right towards.
Rights, as paper theory, are not trade offs. Life, as practical reality, is.No, rights are not trade offs.
At one time I advocated DNA collection at birth from all kids, mothers, and fathers. My reason was for determining paternity (including mothers also to be "fair and equal"), as many so-called family courts liked to stick child support payments on anyone listed as the father on a birth certificate.They tell you it is to avoid mix-ups and giving the wrong baby to the wrong person. I would think there are other ways to insure that but what do I know.
I don't have a problem with it if the parents give their permission. Heck my children and grandchildren all had theirs taken.
At one time I advocated DNA collection at birth from all kids, mothers, and fathers. My reason was for determining paternity (including mothers also to be "fair and equal"), as many so-called family courts liked to stick child support payments on anyone listed as the father on a birth certificate.
Please note the beginning words in that paragraph: "At one time..."
It is not for the parents to give away. It is the child's fingerprints which is a part of their body and it is their right to keep private if that is what they desire.
No a parent is allowed to speak for the infant. The print they take is not part of their body any more than a photograph is part of their body. It's not like they cut the tip off that part of the body and keep it on file!
It is unique to that individual and has almost nothing in common with a photo that anyone can pick up such information about you by simply looking at you.
Because it's significantly more effective than fingerprints.
Oh, and let's not forget that it's frequently used to clear people of charges. If DNA is collected at the time of arrest, it could result in exonerating innocent people much earlier in the process.
If you're arrested for a serious felony, yes. That is what has changed.
Requiring a warrant before collecting DNA doesn't have any effect on this at all.
And any defense attorney has the power to question the credibility of DNA evidence in court.
No. By this reasoning a 6 yr old kid can choose to not go to school if they don't want to as that would be... to use libertarian buzzwords... "tyranny" and "slavery"It is not for the parents to give away. It is the child's fingerprints which is a part of their body and it is their right to keep private if that is what they desire. Since they can not make that decision the proper course of action is to keep it private.
not sure i support this one; there's a lot more info to be gleaned from DNA. thoughts on this decision?
For those against the idea of collecting and storing DNA upon arrest... and I'm not necessarily against you... how do you feel about collecting and storing upon conviction?
Does arrest vs conviction make a difference?
No. By this reasoning a 6 yr old kid can choose to not go to school if they don't want to as that would be... to use libertarian buzzwords... "tyranny" and "slavery"roll even though the kid's parents told them to. Parents get to make decisions for their kids until a specified age.
No, rights are not trade offs.
That is a guidance issue, not a body sovereignty/privacy issue.
How so? I have the right to free speech, but I don't have the right to libel. There's a tradeoff. I have the right to carry arms, but I don't have the right to a machine gun. Unlimited rights are the same as no rights. In both cases, it's rule by the strong.
They cut off the tip of boys talleywhackers before they even know how big it will be and you're worrying about fingerprints!!!!
Both of your examples are poor. You can not violate the right of someone else with speech. No, I do not accept the idea that we should punish mental harms nor do I find the idea that someone has to not have to deal with character assassination as legitimate either. You do not have the right to not be insulted and you surely do not have the right for everyone to know everything about you that is truthful. You just have to learn to defend yourself and get a backbone.
As for the second case, simply owning a certain types of gun does not violate the rights of anyone else, so clearly you have a right to such arms be that machine gun, an AR-15, or a glock. Simply owning an arm harms no one and acts towards no one. You might as well be saying that being gay causes everyone hardship. It's stupid.
Rights only come into conflict. There is no sort of compromise where one person has to give up something for someone else's safety or peace of mind. This is not a trade-off of sorts, but an understanding of where rights end and where they begin.
For those against the idea of collecting and storing DNA upon arrest... and I'm not necessarily against you... how do you feel about collecting and storing upon conviction?
Does arrest vs conviction make a difference?
I'm a goddamn asshole when it comes to that issue.
"Guidance" sounds too much like a warn and fuzzy euphemism when the kid is forced to go to school against their will.That is a guidance issue, not a body sovereignty/privacy issue.
That is absolute crap. Being arrested is not a conviction. You could be arrested for a traffic violation and they can take your DNA??? Screw that.
Also DNA can be used to convict you of a crime. They should need a warrant or probable cause. It's like taking away your right not to self incriminate.
not sure i support this one; there's a lot more info to be gleaned from DNA. thoughts on this decision?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?